By Michael Phillips | MDBayNews
In Montgomery County, political forums are nothing new—especially during a competitive primary season.
But a candidate event scheduled for Monday night in Poolesville is drawing scrutiny, not because it exists, but because of who it includes—and who it leaves out.
The forum, hosted by the Fair Access Committee in partnership with the Town of Poolesville, is being promoted as a community-focused event addressing issues that impact all residents: schools, taxes, development, agriculture, and infrastructure.
Five Democratic candidates for County Executive are scheduled to appear.
No Republican candidates were invited.
And more notably—no equivalent forum has been scheduled for them either.
A Primary Forum—or a Public Platform?
To be clear, there is nothing unusual about political parties hosting their own primary debates. Democrats debating Democrats ahead of a primary is standard practice.
If this event were clearly labeled as a Democratic primary forum, there would likely be little controversy.
But that’s not how this event is being presented.
Instead, it is being framed as a community forum, developed through local committees and held in coordination with town leadership—an event meant to inform the broader public, not just Democratic primary voters.
That distinction matters.
Because when a forum is marketed as a public-facing event, focused on issues affecting the entire community, the question of who gets included becomes unavoidable.
The Missing Candidates
Two Republican candidates for County Executive—Shelly Skolnick, an attorney from Friendship Heights, and Esther Wells, a certified public accountant and president of the Montgomery County Taxpayers League—are not on the stage.
Not because they declined to participate.
But because they were never invited.
Their absence raises a straightforward question:
If this is a forum for the community, why are candidates who will appear on the general election ballot excluded from the conversation?
No Alternative, No Balance
The issue isn’t just that Republican candidates are missing from this particular event.
It’s that there is no comparable forum scheduled for them at all.
In effect, one group of candidates is being given a structured opportunity to speak directly to voters about major policy issues—while another group is left without a similar platform.
That imbalance has implications beyond a single night in Poolesville.
It shapes what voters hear, who they hear from, and how early narratives about the race are formed.
And in a county where one party already dominates politically, that kind of asymmetry carries even more weight.
Esther Wells: “Let Voters Hear Everyone”
Republican candidate Esther Wells has publicly raised concerns about the exclusion, not as an attack on Democratic candidates—but as a question of fairness and access.
Her position is not that Democrats should not hold a primary forum.
It is that voters should be given the opportunity to hear from all candidates, especially in a setting presented as community-oriented.
Wells has also pointed to a broader issue: whether taxpayer-linked or publicly coordinated events should be expected to maintain neutrality when it comes to candidate access.
Her argument is a simple one:
If the goal is to inform voters, why limit who they can hear from?
Call the Organizers—But Why Isn’t There an Answer?
In response to concerns, the Town of Poolesville has directed residents to contact committee representatives with questions about the event.
But that response has only added to the frustration.
Because the core issue isn’t complicated.
Why were certain candidates included—and others excluded?
If there is a clear, neutral rationale, it should be explained publicly.
Instead, voters are being told to seek answers privately.
That approach raises its own concern: transparency shouldn’t require a phone call.
The Larger Pattern
This isn’t happening in isolation.
Across the county, there are growing concerns that political access—whether through forums, coverage, or public events—is becoming increasingly uneven.
Not always explicitly.
But consistently enough to raise questions.
And in environments where one party holds overwhelming power, even subtle imbalances can have outsized effects.
Because when fewer voices are heard early, fewer voices are considered later.
A Simple Standard
This situation doesn’t require new laws or complicated rules.
Just a basic principle:
If an event is:
- Marketed to the general public
- Focused on an office appearing on the general election ballot
- Connected, directly or indirectly, to public-facing institutions
Then voters should have access to all qualified candidates—or at minimum, equivalent opportunities to hear from them.
Anything less risks turning public forums into curated conversations.
The Bottom Line
The Poolesville forum may have been intended as a civic event.
But its structure has turned it into something else—a reminder of how access, even in small ways, shapes the political landscape.
Because when one side gets the stage—and the other doesn’t even get a microphone—
that’s not a forum.
It’s a filter.
Keep MDBayNews Reporting Free
MDBayNews exists to help Marylanders understand decisions made by state and local leaders — especially when those decisions affect daily life, rights, and public services.
If this article helped clarify what’s happening or why it matters, reader support makes it possible to keep publishing clear, independent reporting like this.
Have a tip or documents to share?
We review submissions carefully and confidentially. Anonymous tips are welcome when appropriate.
Discover more from Maryland Bay News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.